Back
1983 Supreme(MP) 874
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.P. SINGH, J.
Ramkrishan - Applicant
Versus
Smt. Sarjubai - Non-Applicant
C. R. No. 890 of 1982 (I)
Decided On : 28-6-1983
For the Applicant : R.K. Zamindar
For the Non-Applicant : P.K. Saxena
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - S. 92 - Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M.P.) - S. 5,26 and 27 (4) - permission to file suit for removal of Pujari from public temple - provisions under S. 92 of Code not applicable - relief can be obtained under S. 26 of the Act - nature of the trust can only be decided by Registrar under S. 5 of the Act.
Short Note
1. This revision is directed against an order dated 22 - 9 - 1982, passed by the District Judge, Indore, in Case No. 5 - A of 1982, staying the case.
2. The case in which this order was made was instituted by the applicants under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of permission to bring a suit under that provision for removal of pujaris for framing of a scheme and for other reliefs for management of Narsingh Mandir.
Held: Perusal of the plaint goes to show that prima facie the temple is a public temple and falls within the definition of public trust under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts of Act. In cases trust governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure ceases to be applicable on matters on which reliefs can be obtained under section 26. This is specifically provided in section 27 (4). The jurisdiction to decide finally whether the trust is a public trust, vests in the Registrar under section 5. That the Court can prima facie decide the question leaving to the parties interested to file an application before the Registrar for adjudication of the question whether the trust is a public trust (See. Shri Deo Hanumanji v. Ram Gulam 1962 JLJ 508)
3. The District Judge was in my opinion, therefore, right in staying the proceedings. It would be open to the applicants to move the Registrar under section 5 of the Act for registration of the public trust. This point is conceded by the counsel for the non - applicants, who will have no right to raise any objection to the maintainability of the application if made by the applicants before the Registrar. 1962 JLJ 508 relied on. Revision dismissed.
